Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Does anyone know if the V uses true physical modeling? A Korg rep stated that he doesn't think any Roland products use true physical modeling. He believes it probably relies on additive synthesis. If that is the case, it wouldn't be the case that any piano sound can be created using the V because an underlying sample is still the starting point.

As for the V-Piano, Roland needs to get in gear and continue to support it with upgrades and or patches. Roland can even charge some money for an upgrade patch if it is truly a new modeled piano sound beyond the two we already get.

Does anyone know if the V uses true physical modeling? A Korg rep stated that he doesn't think any Roland products use true physical modeling. He believes it probably relies on additive synthesis. If that is the case, it wouldn't be the case that any piano sound can be created using the V because an underlying sample is still the starting point.

Additive synthesis and modelling can be practically the same thing. To produce additive synthesis you don't necessarily need an underlying sample. It can be as simple as a sine wave and a basic platform, then you add oscillations and attack/decay envelopes etc until you build up a profile of a piano note. Modelling uses certain algorithms to mimic a physical reality but it can still be implemented using an additive approach. I don't know how the V-Piano works, but I thought I'd mention that. Fwiw, I doubt the V-piano is using samples because I think they wouldn't have had the same issues with the midrange if there was a piano sample under it. I also think that anything "added" to a sample could be pulled back to reveal the basic sample, at least somewhat. Yet this is not the case on the V-piano. You could easily work out whether samples are involved by inspecting the hardware - you could expect to see some sort of mass storage in there somewhere which holds the samples.

Btw, I don't know that you'd want to take the word of any competing manufacturer assessing a rival product. They all have an axe to grind whether they realise/admit it or not.

The distinction was between additive synthesis and pure physical modeling. I always assumed the V was a purely physically modeled sound, but the Korg rep seemed to think that was unlikely. I wasn't saying that the V uses samples for playback but that the initial waveform is taken from an attack sample..... Although I wonder how that makes it different than SN apart from the additional adjustable parameters.

What, then, is 'pure physical modelling'? Additive and subtractive synthesis are well established means of building up a sound from mechanically or purely electronically generated waves (Hammond and Moog, for example). Digital sampling is another thing - I assume digital pianos mostly dissemble and re-assemble samples to a greater or lesser extent, some largely playing back samples in tact, others involving a lot more analytical processing (Yamaha vs Roland?). But now, increasingly, there is this term 'physical modelling' which makes one think of piles of clay and plasticine. But what is it if not 'synthesis' and does it really not use samples at any stage of sound creation?

i loved how when the v-piano first came out you had all these roland rep's/contract musicians talking about how it used physical modelling instead of sampling, as if that was as well understood as the sun rising each day. you could tell they didn't have the slightest clue what they were talking about other than what their literature said. not that i know how it works either, and i've often wondered how the root sound actually is generated....

The distinction was between additive synthesis and pure physical modeling. I always assumed the V was a purely physically modeled sound, but the Korg rep seemed to think that was unlikely. I wasn't saying that the V uses samples for playback but that the initial waveform is taken from an attack sample..... Although I wonder how that makes it different than SN apart from the additional adjustable parameters.

If they are using genuine physical modelling, there won't be any sample content in the sound. Pure modelling is done mathematically - there is no playback of any kind, it's realtime generation according to the physical model. I suppose you could argue that Roland took a look at real sampled attacks etc, and of course they would have, but that's different to actually using them. More likely, they used that information to refine their modelling. If you are able to change the attack characteristics in a continuously variable fashion, it is evidence of modelling, not sampling.

Modelling is a word used a lot in the music industry and it is rarely defined in a satisfactory way - especially once you add the proprietary techno-spin hype onto it. In the end we have to go back to how it sounds - which is what musicians should be doing.

i loved how when the v-piano first came out you had all these roland rep's/contract musicians talking about how it used physical modelling instead of sampling, as if that was as well understood as the sun rising each day. you could tell they didn't have the slightest clue what they were talking about other than what their literature said. not that i know how it works either, and i've often wondered how the root sound actually is generated....

I actually know a thing or two about modeling. If you really want to know more about it, read some of this below.

Most of the early work on physical modeling of musical instruments was focused onstrings. This is due to a combination of happy accidents: the equations describing thevibration of an ideal string are straightforward to understand, computationally ecient tosimulate, and when used to make even the simplest models, produce sound qualities weassociate with stringed instruments.

If they are using genuine physical modelling, there won't be any sample content in the sound. Pure modelling is done mathematically - there is no playback of any kind, it's realtime generation according to the physical model. I suppose you could argue that Roland took a look at real sampled attacks etc, and of course they would have, but that's different to actually using them. More likely, they used that information to refine their modelling. If you are able to change the attack characteristics in a continuously variable fashion, it is evidence of modelling, not sampling.

Yes I understand. My question was whether anyone can confirm that the V is based on pure physical modeling. The SN sounds use samples in the attack. The Korg rep seemed to believe that the V piano is based on the same underlying technology. A related point had come up on the Jupiter and it's VA section.

I always assumed the V was a purely physically modeled sound, but the Korg rep seemed to think that was unlikely. I wasn't saying that the V uses samples for playback but that the initial waveform is taken from an attack sample.....

Hi Hideki,

First of all, never listen to what a "Korg rep" says about Roland's stuff as they are probably misinformed about the facts, anyway.

Here is Roland's word on that, copied directly from their product info:(Note the words below, highlighted in red.)

Breaking BarriersThe V-Piano soars above the limitations of past technologies with its revolutionary “living” piano core, allowing every note to respond and evolve naturally, seamlessly, and perfectly without requiring samples.With the V-Piano, there is no velocity switching, and it provides a smooth, natural decay that must be heard to be believed.

My question was whether anyone can confirm that the V is based on pure physical modeling. The SN sounds use samples in the attack.

And, I think to truly confirm what it is you are asking would require "dewster" (or, someone who can check the actual hardware of the V-Piano) to open it up, and, see if any samples are to be found. Not very likely, as such...

If they are using genuine physical modelling, there won't be any sample content in the sound. Pure modelling is done mathematically - there is no playback of any kind, it's realtime generation according to the physical model. I suppose you could argue that Roland took a look at real sampled attacks etc, and of course they would have, but that's different to actually using them. More likely, they used that information to refine their modelling. If you are able to change the attack characteristics in a continuously variable fashion, it is evidence of modelling, not sampling.

Yes I understand. My question was whether anyone can confirm that the V is based on pure physical modeling. The SN sounds use samples in the attack. The Korg rep seemed to believe that the V piano is based on the same underlying technology. A related point had come up on the Jupiter and it's VA section.

I can tell you that I am 100% certain the V-Piano does not use any samples, not even for the soundboard. Everything is emulated sound. Below is an excerpt of the pdf I posted above.

Physically-based modeling, or physical modeling, is a way to make sounds based onthe physics of mechanical systems. Compared to other kinds of synthesis such as FM orsampling, it tends to be computationally expensive. Interesting vibrating systems, such asmusical instruments, are fairly complex; modeling the physics of these systems is muchmore involved than modeling the sound spectra or waveforms they produce. Creating sonically interesting physical models that will run in real time has been a major challenge.Despite this computational cost, however, physical modeling has been the most popularsynthesis approach in academic research since the early 1990s [62]. This popularity isdue largely to its promise to extend our acoustic world in perceptually novel yet intuitivelycorrect ways. Many researchers consider physical models to oer better prospects thansignal-oriented methods for the design of expressive digital instruments

The V-Piano uses four of the latest modified Fantom synthesis engines running four distinct/separate three dimensional physical models running simultaneously. What is interesting is that each of the four interact with each other and affect the way each other sounds. Each model uses a mesh type of design that can be manipulated by changing shape (hammer size) and physical property (silver and copper for instance) and soundboard size thus changing the produced waveform.

Just think how far this technology has come from just 10 years ago. The article I posted talks about "Intimacy" of the user and the instrument.

The Supernatural Roland piano uses recorded samples of three of the synthesis engines and using one modeled sound engine to create the illusion that the decay time does not loop. In essence, no real piano is used to gain the supernatural piano sound as well.

I own and have used the Yamaha VL plugin with my S90 for the past ten years which uses a breath controller which I blow into which is letting the physically modeled single or 1 polyphony sound to be generated. Archaic by todays standards, it does mark a big leap in the technology field and it is a shame Yamaha has abandoned it.

MIDI keyboards typically have acceptablelatency and jitter for intimate control, but the musical keyboard interface is not a goodmatch for the intimate connection invited by physical modeling synthesis. It’s evident thatYamaha realized this. They included a breath controller—a little-used option for keyboardplayers at the time—with the synthesizers as a strong suggestion that more intimate controlwas desirable.Keyboard instruments are certainly capable of expressive performance, but they do notoer particularly intimate control. Tools aord certain kinds of use at the expense of others;seen as musical tools, keyboard instruments trade intimacy for the control of harmoniccomplexity. In order to oer this control, the piano mediates its soundmaking apparatusthrough events. Each event, a keypress, triggers an excitation of a physical system, thestring, with an impact of a certain velocity. Compared to a guitar, say, the piano aords verylittle control over a note once is it started and in general, we can say that signals providegreater control intimacy than events. Given the ubiquity of the keyboard as synthesizercontroller, its use to control physical models is understandable. But in our search for greaterexpressivity, it makes sense to look for more intimate kinds of control.A haptic connection is another vital aspect of musical intimacy with acoustic instruments. Vibrations of the instrument sensed by touch are often an important part of the performer’s sensory experience.

In the copy and paste process, some letters go missing and the formatting gets all messed up. You can go read the pdf I linked to in an earlier post, this one is from page 24. This article was written in 2008 btw, so it is a little dated, however the actual material is not that far off as to where the V-piano has come. The article talks about 2D sound vs 3D sound where the V-piano actually ended up. THe intimacy factor plays a huge part as to why the V-piano works so well and feels so organic. That is probably what took Roland so long to get it right.

hap·tic definition Pronunciation: /ˈhap-tik/ or hap·ti·cal Pronunciation: /-ti-kəl/ Function: adj1 : relating to or based on the sense of touch haptic mode of perception —Colin Gordon>2 : characterized by a predilection for the sense of touch haptic person>